Letters: Marriage equality, Voting Rights Act

U.S. Supreme Court justices take the bench today to issue the first of 11 decisions, which could change civil rights in the U.S. for decades to comeChip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Star-Ledger readers wrote us to comment on the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings this week on the Defense of Marriage Act and the Voting Rights Act.

Divine rulings

Several years ago, I was walking near St. Mark’s on the Bowery when I saw a beautiful young woman look up as she prepared to cross the street. At that moment, she caught sight of her friend across 2nd Avenue and the joy that exploded from her face was one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen. She hurried through the crosswalk and the two merged in an embrace and a kiss. Their relationship was apparent.

Love is our gift to God — be it a baby’s laugh, a parent’s pride or a person’s happiness. I thought the purity of the love coming from these two women was one of the most worshipful acts I have ever seen.

I don’t believe government belongs in the marriage business. But government does belong in the rights business, and all people should have the right to choose whom they go through life with and everything that goes along with that right. I’d like to think the Supreme Court made God a little happier.

D.F. Downey, Bloomfield

A wider win

As a heterosexual who believes in marriage equality, your article about the Supreme Court decisions relating to DOMA and California’s Prop 8 should not have been headlined "Victory for Gay America." It should have read "Victory for America."

Mark Kaplan, Westfield

A limited decision

Why must there be laws and legal fights and Supreme Court rulings for like genders to make a commitment to one another and declare they want to be married? Why do people who have no connection to those who wish to marry have the right to object and feel it is they who must bless the union?

It is up to the two people who wish to commit and marry to make this decision.

Bob Gill, Elizabeth

Lean on Christie

Now that the Supreme Court has struck down DOMA, it’s time for the people of New Jersey to lean on our governor to move him to defy his party’s core and legalize marriage for everyone in our state.

The governor’s one overriding excuse has been and still is that our civil union law provides equal benefits for all married couples. It may, which means the only difference is in the name. That only reinforces the governor’s feelings of "otherness" toward homosexuals, which in turn reinforces the fact that he is nothing more than a bully, willing to ostracize anyone who differs from him.

Steven Delpome, North Arlington

End benefits for marriage

It was inevitable that the Supreme Court would find the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. Equality under the law requires that two married homosexual people are entitled to federal benefits available to heterosexual married couples.

The only reason the court had to address this issue is that our federal and state laws provide special benefits to different classes of people. The only reason these distinctions exist is that the federal government has used laws such as the tax code to support institutions, such as marriage.

It is way past time for our governments to get out of the marriage business.

Amending federal and state laws to remove distinctions based upon marital status would preclude the need to redefine marriage by the states. Once the concept of special marital benefits is removed, the desire/need to be considered "married" is removed, as everyone will be treated equally.

Edward J. Kmiec, Califon

High court’s disrespect

When John Roberts was confirmed as chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, "judicial minimalism" was the catchword he used to describe the judge’s limited role in our democratic system.

However, by striking down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the court acted as a "super-legislature," for it has substituted its own judgment for that of the democratically elected branches of government. Instead of showing respect to the elected branches, five members of the court invalidated an act of Congress passed and renewed by large, bipartisan majorities.

The court’s actions are the definition of judicial activism.

Andrew Boufford, Manchester

Mistake on voting rights

It is indeed a day of concern and indignation, now that the U.S. Supreme Court has invalidated Section 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It came as no surprise to me, but I was keeping counsel this court would do the right thing.

On the surface, it may appear that forms of discrimination that hamper an individual’s right to vote is passé, but a more thorough investigation is warranted. Attitudes and feelings are not easily transformed, particularly in places that have a history and tradition of discrimination.

Reasonable Americans should be outraged, but they don’t seem to be unless it hits their pocketbooks.